Posted
by
Zonk
on Friday August 04, 2006 @06:57PM
from the another-one-bites-the-dust dept.

PCM2 writes "A coalition of major recording companies sued the operators of the file-sharing program LimeWire for copyright infringement Friday, claiming the firm encourages users to trade music without permission." From thge article: " The case is the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet. In the complaint, the record companies contend LimeWire's operators are "actively facilitating, encouraging and enticing" computer users to steal music by failing to block access to copyright works and building a business model that allows them to profit directly from piracy. "

Nobody's in charge of the gnutella network---there's nobody to sue. (Side note: we all know about freenet and its drawbacks, but have any of the other projects that claim a goal of being faster and better than freenet gotten anywhere yet?)

Hence, the RIAA will systematically sue every gnutella-capable software package they can track down. They can't sue things that are produced in countries outside their jurisdiction, but, that won't stop them from: (a) spying on you so they can sue people who download said programs [this is one advantage to freenet: some anonymity], (b) passing legislation to make it illegal to possess or write software that can be used to violate copyrights (DMCA et al)

Where do I write a complaint letter? I use programs like limewire to share my creative-commons music (and other artists' similarly-licensed music) with both friends and strangers. Are they trying to deny me the opportunity to use a different distribution model for my music? P2P is great, because I don't have to shell out big bucks for bandwidth.

That sounds like CD-distribution music companies trying to destroy non-CD-distribution music companies... it looks a lot like monopolistic behavior to me.:-/

STFU!Usenet? Nothing to see here RIAA/MPAA, please move along.I almost hate to talk about this subject, not because I feel seasoned or elite but only because I do fear a potential radar sighting. At a very slow but steady pace, the brontosaurus that is Usenet, is getting more flexibility on the front end. The days of manually saving and piecing together messages in the right order and piping them to the right converter went away well over a decade ago. It can now be just a few clicks if you choose. The

I dunno... Maybe we should talk about the groups.Most ISP servers are worse than shit. How many people pay for a decent Use*cough*Net provider? How many of us have been paying for years and years? Paying for content is not new to us. Isn't that what the media moguls would like? Everyone paying for content?

Bring it on. Headline news please. Highlight the actual cost of bandwidth. Tell the world that 700mb costs less than $0.50. Tell the world that from the first click to a picture on the TV takes less than 3

Hunh?Limewire is one of 13 different compatible implementations of Gnutella - none of which require a server or other organization to run the network. The RIAA may try, but attacking Limewire will get them even less in the way of results than attacking Napster or Kazaa.

http://www.gnutelliums.com/windows/ has a list of all the other Gnutella clients for Windows.

The real shame here is that OS-X's only other real searchable filesharing option is Phex - which, if I remember correctly is on the slow side.

The RIAA and MPAA are teaming up to sue the highway patrol of all states with interstates that border on other states for failing to stop them and prevent them from allowing friends to copy their DVD's and CD's.

Recording Industrialists Against Artists will try anything to make sure no one hears so much as a note of music without paying them. Music has existed since the dawn of time, not just since the invention of the phonograph. RIAA, you are obsolete and your products are too. No one needs you any more. Don't Buy CDs. [dontbuycds.org]

I make it a point to buy CDs only from small, independent labels. All the rest of the stuff I listen to I download in industrial quantities, savoring the fact that I'm not putting a single additional cent into the RIAA's coffers. I refuse to subsidize Britney's or Mariah's multimillion dollar contracts. I refuse to subsidize corporate suits recruiting an army of shysters to terrorize the population, instead of creatively working towards win-win scenarios.Furthermore, I do not listen to Clear Channel stat

If only 99% of all current legislation wasn't grotesquely tilted in favor of these corporate behemots, I would side with your viewpoint.

However, the cost to manufacture a CD is less than a dollar, yet their product goes for around twenty. Corporate robber barons, the de facto government today, bring to mind the attitude, espoused by Thomas Jefferson, that rebellion, every now and then, is a healthy thing.

I will neither endorse nor support these robber barons by voting for them with my dollars, and do not mind chipping a bit at their cornerstone as well, along with millions of other people, from the looks of it.

As other have pointed out, the music costs money to produce, but regardless, they can charge whatever they want. You don't need to buy from them. That is why they are not "de facto government". When they start holding guns to people's heads and saying "buy a CD, now", I'll side with your viewpoint.

If you want to show your disapproval of these companies don't buy from them. Stealing is incentive for them to create DRM and raise prices.

What, do you think that companies are entitled to profit? It sure would be nice to get special laws to protect any old business model you can think of, even if you can't prove it's providing a net benefit to society.

Big hint: IP doesn't count as "free market". It's more of a socialist experiment than anything related to capitalism; it's a m

Click listen now and you can get either a mp3 stream or wma of the live on the air station. This station is positively amazing, it is a minneapolis station operated by minnesota public radio. It is different though in that public radio is almost always focused on news and classical music, this station plays a HUGE selection of modern non-classical music. A lot of local and independant artists as well as highly tallented artists that can be heard elsewhere (but usually not the "hit single" that you might here)...if you request it, they can play it even if its not in their typical type. They also do a lot of in-studio preformances which are all archived and available for play from their site. An added bonus is that they employ two of the most talented dj's I have ever heard (one was a long time music expert dj at the U of M's college station and the other is just a great dj who got bounced around a lot as non-cc stations got taken over by clearchannel). The two are usually back to back weeknights from around 3:00-10:00 IIRC (thier names would be Mary Lucia and Mark Wheat).

Give it a shot, and try it at a few different times because sometimes you can pick up on djs in a wierd mood (doing a themed set or something) or shows you might not be into: for example, I believe late saturday nights get deep into underground hip-hop and rap which may not be everyones cup of tea or right now as I post this they are playing a DJ Sasha set recorded sometime this week in california.

BTW, check out the www.wfmu.org website, it's just as insane as the programming itself.The programming for any given show depends on the DJ, his tastes and moods. One show is industrial noise, another is children's singalongs, another is antique 78s from the 1910's and 20's, and so on and so forth, basically a little bit of absolutely everything.

One show, Incorrect Music, plays only the worst songs ever recorded. In this particular show, the worst of the worst is a travesty called Baby Lulu; whenever the

That's a completely unfair comparison. Roads are essential in today's world. Give me a nice list of all the legitimate (read: legal) uses for LimeWire, and I'll believe you. I bet you can think of some, but I'm sure most people use LimeWire for illegal purposes.

Now they make be going after the wrong people, targeting the makers of LimeWire instead of the file-sharers, but a nice crackdown on illegal file-sharing sure beats some new, twisted form of DRM.

Give me a nice list of all the legitimate (read: legal) uses for LimeWire, and I'll believe you. I bet you can think of some, but I'm sure most people use LimeWire for illegal purposes.

So what? Grokster did not destroy the Sony rule. So it doesn't matter whether most people use LimeWire illegally.

Now they make be going after the wrong people, targeting the makers of LimeWire instead of the file-sharers,

Not at all. First, it's entirely possible to go after them and win. See e.g. the Napster and Grokster cases. The law allows indirect infringers to be sued just as easily as direct infringers. Second, plaintiffs would prefer to go after LimeWire. They have a policy of going after the deep pocket (i.e. a defendant that can actually pay the damages awarded). But more importantly, they have a policy of going after the head of the snake. If LimeWire shuts down, then all of their users will have to find new networks or stop sharing. Some will likely stop sharing. Others will go to new networks, but those will be shut down too, in turn. The idea is to stop P2P filesharing by shutting down the networks and software developers. Then it doesn't matter whether the users want to infringe in this fashion; they lack the ready ability to do so. Going after direct infringers is less useful to plaintiffs since it achieves less. Why go after one infringer, or a handful, when you can essentially go after them all by targeting the network?

Get the picture?

but a nice crackdown on illegal file-sharing sure beats some new, twisted form of DRM.

That is absolutely not how that works. They'll do both. What you're suggesting is appeasement, but I guarantee you that it won't work.

As we all know, we really put a stop to those illegal drug sales by going after the "heads of the snakes" there. Wanna-be drug users just can't find someone willing to supply them anymore, most of the time!

Oh, wait....

I get the logic, but there's a fundamental flaw. You can't effectively stop the masses from breaking an arbitrary restriction placed on an activity if the masses feel what they're doing is justified.

If LimeWire shuts down tomorrow, a programmer will be out there coding the next replacement for it - only with additional protections to make it harder than before to track the source of the traffic.Shut that down, and another will pop up, and another, and.....

If it finally proves not too effective to do p2p sharing at all, due to the "law" constantly putting a stop to it - people will resort to more "guerrila" tactics (as they've already done many times before). Things can be uploaded with non-obvious filenames and folder names, to random servers (or even web or ftp sites that passwords were hacked on in advance) - and private message forums can provide the short-lived and always rotating links to them.

VPN tunnels can be set up from point to point between trusted parties and files interchanged on their makeshift WANs.

Individuals can offer files through their IM clients.

Of course, Usenet is utilized too, and it doesn't seem practical to successfully put a stop to it.

People might even wish to set up email list servers that distribute attached files to those who know the secret commands to email to get signed up and request them.

Don't forget all the other alternatives, such as running telnet-based BBS software. (Kind of a "retro" solution, but like opting to run Windows 3.1 to use the Internet on your PC and thereby dodging almost all the trojan horse spyware, might be effective through obscurity, at least for a while.)

That's a completely unfair comparison. Roads are essential in today's world. Give me a nice list of all the legitimate (read: legal) uses for LimeWire, and I'll believe you. I bet you can think of some, but I'm sure most people use LimeWire for illegal purposes.

Limewire can be used to offset the bandwidth loads of legit music and movies (just as torrents are)
Roads can be used to help legit people get from one point to another

Limewire can be used to distribute illegal movies and music.
Roads can be use

Yes, I have a legitimate use, I'll tell you what *I* use Limewire for; I trade Old Time Radio shows that are out of copyright, and unscoped airchecks of political talk shows that I actually have PERMISSION to share. I run http://www.whiterosesociety.org/ [whiterosesociety.org] where we have 100% legal content all for free.

I once wtote an editorial encouraging cities to sue liquor manufacturers for all the carnage caused by their products: vehicle accidents, unwanted pregnancies, teen alcoholism, etc. I further suggested that to "reduce the amount of alcohol on the streets and preven 'straw purchases', we need laws limiting alcohol purchases by individuals to no more than one U.S. gallon in aggregate per month."Further, automobiles cause thousands of deaths per year, are used to commit and facillitate crimes, etc. So, why isn

The difference is that Remington has lots of money to buy lawyers to defend themselves. If the government going after you for something equally as stupid your probably out of luck becuase you can afford million in legal fees.

This is like sueing Remington because guns make it easier to kill people.

Not really. Companies like Remington go to enormous lengths to label everything they ship, and infuse every bit of their marketing message with the "don't hurt people with our products, please." They pump lots of money and support into law enforcement, safety training for hunters and sport shooters, and they expressly fund programs that teach kids how to be safe with a firearm if they get involved in such sports.

No, they will first sue International Paper [wikipedia.org], Bic [bicworld.com], Dixon Ticonderoga [wikipedia.org], or Crayola [crayola.com]. After all, paper, pens, pencils, and crayons can all be used to make copies of pages of song lyrics or a scene of a movie.

And why stop there? Since blood can technically be used as a writing medium, the RIAA and MPAA will soon take the drastic step of suing every person on Earth with blood flowing in their veins.

"Internet networks are in many respects already treated like common carriers. ISPs are largely immune from liability for third party content. The Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander. The DMCA established that ISPs which comply with DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network."

The case is the first piracy lawsuit brought against a distributor of file-sharing software since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet.

Maybe next, they can arrest me for trespassing, because I'm encouraging all you to go stand on your neighbors' lawns without permission.

When you download limewire from limewire.com, you are prompted to make the following decision before your download begins:
1) I might use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement.
OR
2) I will not use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement.
Case closed.

Sorry counselor, but that isn't good enough.It sounds as though RIAA is using the new inducement theory of indirect infringement. The rule there is:

[O]ne who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.

In applying that rule, the Court looked at everything from Grokster's business plan, advertisements, technology, and even

I'm not so sure they'll be able to pull this off, though. Limewire is a Gnutella client. Everything is distributed. It isn't like Napster where they had a centralized search engine to find pirated music. The only thing Limewire does is implement the Gnutella protocol, which means you can use it to search for any shared files. Even if the Limewire people wanted to block copyrighted material, there isn't a feasible way for them to do it. Block by filename and people will just change it to something else. Prev

Yup, and we should be supporting them!People stop buying music through their distribution channels, and their revenue stream is cut off... Then the spend their remaining cash on legal bills and lobbying, and they're out of business. It's the one two punch. It's the one way of suing out of existance that nobody ever sees coming.

And to make the whole thing even better, they're always about three years behind the times when it comes to picking which piece of software they need to sue out of existance. You woul

It's amazing to me that the RIAA hasn't figured out that they really need to sue those bastards that wrote TCP/IP and didn't think for a minute to include DRM in the original description... They've made so much money since all the networks that operate on the protocol so viciously promote piracy of copyrighted material. They should pay for their lack of foresight.

And what do all of those copyright infringing TCP/IP computers run on? Electricty. And how is 90-odd percent of that electricity generated? By burning stuff... with...[dun-dun-DUUNNNNN]... FIRE.

The RIAA needs to sue that bastard Ogg. I don't care that that bastard died a hundred and something tousand years ago. The RIAA should hire a crack squad of archeologists to dig his fossilized bones up and nail his ass in court.

I think some people are missing the point here. LimeWire isn't under the gun because it "allows" users to illegally trade copyrighted material. The RIAA is asserting that the operators are encouraging its users to break copyright laws.

This claim is not unlike an accusation of slander. It's very difficult to truly prove that the intent of the accused was to cause harm to the accuser, yet this is the burden that the RIAA must now bear. I'm sure they have some sort of "proof" up their sleeves of LimeWire's misdeeds.

I'm in no way condoning the anti-consumer practices of the *AA as of late, but I suspect that the RIAA will win this one by precedent, sad though that may be.

Might be they're hoping to turn something up in a fishing expedition, in case somebody in Limewire was stupid enough to keep an e-mail or other document discussing how they might capitalize on copyright infringement, or if their advertising ever crossed that line.

Whether LimeWire encourages people to break copyright laws will be left up to the courts, and you can bet that this will reach all the way to the supreme court. LimeWire's main defense here is the little "I might use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement." and "I will not use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement" radio buttons on the download page. Whether this counts as a binding agreement between LimeWire and the users in such a way that it relieves LimeWire of the responsibility to monitor for

I'll take that bet. The rule was already settled in the recent Grokster case. Since there's nothing new, the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case if anyone even bothers to ask.

LimeWire's main defense here is the little "I might use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement." and "I will not use LimeWire BASIC for copyright infringement" radio buttons on the download page. Whether this counts as a binding agreement between LimeWire and

Yes I fully agree with you on this, theyre screwed, but not because theyre actually breaking the law in the slightest.

They will be ruled against because the bought supreme court made it entirely subjective, allowing their corporate schills to basically pick and choose what technology is allowed to exist without real public debate or due legislative process. Talk about activist judges..

According to their last ruling, for a software like this to be considered OK there must be overwhelming legal use of the software. That is, like most products, it should be used legally like 60% of the time (I'm pulling numbers out of a hat).

That is a misinterpretation of the Grokster ruling and others. Look at the VCR, for example; as long as there's significant noninfringing use, the amount of infringing use doesn't matter.

According to their last ruling, for a software like this to be considered OK there must be overwhelming legal use of the software.

That is completely wrong. The Grokster case did not remove the Sony rule. It added a new, independent theory of infringement that bypasses Sony. This rule has nothing to do with how the technology is used. Rather, it has to do with how the defendant acted and what the defendant said. If the defendant expected and provoked infringements, he's liable, even if there were only a few

What about the word "Steal". If you mean download songs I already purchased from the record companies in casette format that the sun melted before the concept of fair use was legal precedent, then I suppose that's stealing. Ex post facto and they can't prove I didn't.

I thought when you installed Limewire, you were actually asked whether you planned to infringe any copyrights. I answered no, of course, so I'm not sure what happens if you answer yes, but it *felt* like they were against copyright infringement. That's more like (somewhat passively) DISCOURAGING people.

Based on that complaint, it sounds more like they're passively encouraging people, at best.

It's a factor. Take it seriously.

From the Grokster case:

Second, this evidence of unlawful objective is given added significance by MGM's showing that neither company attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using their software. While the Ninth Circuit treated the defendants' failure to develop such tools as irrelevant because they lacked an independent duty to monit

Yes, but the real key points is that "in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability". The real question is, will they be able to prove LimeWire *encouraged* unlawful infringement, beyond simply not developing filtering mechanisms. If the answer is no, then I suspect the RIAA will lose... otherwise, LimeWire is probably screwed.Personally, I think the RIAA *doesn't* have such proof, and they're hoping to expand the previous ruling such that

Oh, I'm sure it is being taken seriously. I think what the GP was getting at is that the RIAA's statement is inherently contradictory. It won't help Limewire at all in this case, but the point is that as usual the RIAA is talking complete bullshit.

Last time I installed LimeWire, I was required to click through a page that wouldn't install unless I said that "No, I will not use LimeWire or their services to commit copyright infringement." Admittedly, that was several versions of LW and several reinstalls of my OS ago (I experiment a lot), but I doubt LimeWire would be stupid enough to remove that kind of clickpage.

Next they'll sue people who make simple ftp servers on the same grounds, then the IETF for coming up with file transfer protocols, then anyone having anything to do with routable networks like DARPA and while we're at at it, why not just sue the people who melt sand to make fiber optics and mine the copper that makes our cables for not explicitly "failing to block access to copyright works". Shoot, we should just sue people for existing.

Anything that makes it this easy (which is everything the internet is) is just asking for it to happen. If you were to leave the doors of a store unlocked and propped open at night, and all the cops were in another town, and the power went out so all the surveillance equipment was dead, that's not really asking for people to come in and steal everything. But in just about any heavily populated are that store wouldn't have a crumb small enough for a mouse left. There's nothing that should make those things

microsoft is actively encouraging hackers to write virusses, trojans, worms etc. (since the protection is so poor)
so this means microsoft must be accountable for any damage that any worm, virus, trojan etc. does to any windows pc on this planet...

When you download limewire you have to select one of two options "I might use limewire for copyright infringement" or "I will not use limewire for copyright infringement". Selecting the former option does not allow you to download limewire. And then of course there's the 50 page EUlA which probably mentions something about not being liable for your actions.

Also, fuck the RIAA/MPAA and their large scale sue-everyone-and-get-rich-quite scheme.

Listen up, pigopolists. LimeWire isn't responsible. YOU are responsible. Your rampant, unchecked greed is the reason we download music using P2P instead of obtaining it directly from you for a nominal fee. LimeWire may be the current conduit, but you are not going to stop P2P by stopping LimeWire. In fact, you are making your own lives more difficult by encouraging the P2P community to devise and deploy a new music sharing system that has no central controlling entity that you can sue. The more heavy-handed you get with us, the harder we are going to fight back. We are NOT going to succumb to your greed. You made your bed, now you can f$%*ing sleep in it.

Amen. I would love to be abe to download music, movies, and whatever else I desire for a nominal fee. That"s a reasonable fee, not $20 for one song that is played on the radio continuously. That's the bottom line: The *AA have failed MISERABLY to address the new distribution medium, making it worthwhile to deal with bad transfers, torrent sites, and twelve hour distributed download times. They need to get with the program, not keep blaming people who get it.

Everyone here seems to be defending Limewire, when the fact remains that although I sincerely doubt they encourage copywrite infringement, they certainly do facilitate it. I feel that I can confidently say that 99% of Limewires usage is to distribute copy-written material. That said, is everyone defending it on principle -- that principle being a sincere dislike for the RIAA -- or is it just fun to play ignorant?

"What?!?! Downloading copy-written material, who the hell does that on Limewire!? Certainly no

That said, is everyone defending it on principle -- that principle being a sincere dislike for the RIAA -- or is it just fun to play ignorant?

The RIAA can squick themselves with a steel dildo studded with glass shards and then piss in the Amazon and get a candiru in their urethra for all I care. If I like a band, I'll go to their concerts and support them that way. At least the rights-grabbers at the RIAA aren't getting their soiled hands on 95% of the profits.

Aside from providing the software, does the LimeWire company play any role at all in the Gnutella network?

If the LimeWire company were to be completely closed down, wouldn't users already possessing the LimeWire software be able to continue using it as before? Or do I not understand how this whole P2P system works.

Limewire is allready open source, you can download it right here: http://www.limewire.org/limewire.zip [limewire.org] . The community site for it is http://limewire.org/ [limewire.org] . So therefor, if limewire gets sued, there is still frostwire http://frostwire.org/ [frostwire.org] which is a fork of limewire, and provides same functionality. Frostwire isn't run by an organization so it would be pretty hard to sue.

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that technology companies could be sued for copyright infringement on the grounds that they encouraged customers to steal music and movies over the Internet.

Someone must have been asleep at law school when they discussed the elements of theft/stealing/larceny and the meaning of notions such as "personal property" (AKA "things movable"), "taking and carrying away" and "to deprive the owner of the property".

Actually, the word "encouraged" suggests that may have been a rather extended nap which stretched into the class on aiding and abetting as well...

I was under the impression that 'piracy' in a modern context was the act of selling (or buying) duplicated goods, therefore an unauthorized profit is being turned. Maybe the definition has been revised since Napster?However, if we use the term 'file-sharing', we are back on neutral ground, with none of those nasty, loaded terms that obfuscate polite conversation. I remember that a couple of years ago, the courts had not yet decided on the legality (or ilegality) of file-sharing. However, when the US Sena